Well I've finished watching this movie and firstly have to say Leonardo did a great job. I found this movie very interesting to see how J Edgar lived his life. I have to say the Lindbergh investigations had me curious after watching this film I had to google to read some more.

Well I've finished watching this movie and firstly have to say Leonardo did a great job. I found this movie very interesting to see how J Edgar lived his life.

Haven't seen the movie yet,but am anxious too,but have a question. Is the movie trying to truthfully portray how Hoover actually is thought to have lived his life???,or is it Hollywood's version of how they want people to believe Hoover lived his life?? I know Hollywood does take some liberties with the truth for storytelling purposes(that's ok),and then there is downright fiction and lies. Don't think Hollywood ever liked Hoover none to much.

Haven't seen the movie yet,but am anxious too,but have a question. Is the movie trying to truthfully portray how Hoover actually is thought to have lived his life???,or is it Hollywood's version of how they want people to believe Hoover lived his life?? I know Hollywood does take some liberties with the truth for storytelling purposes(that's ok),and then there is downright fiction and lies. Don't think Hollywood ever liked Hoover none to much.

I assume it would be but then again i never knew too much about the man to validate whats been portrayed is true.

I've read three different biographies on him over the past twenty five years or so. The film appears to be accurate. Of course, the film is short compared to large biographies. The liberties appear only in time spent in emphasis on certain things leaving much out obviously.

The stuff backstage so to speak with Clyde Tolson like the lovers spat on the floor I'd personally never read about but it may appear elsewhere.

Watched this on BD last night. I thought Leo was very good. The makeup, not so much.

There were times the back and forth between the different years seemed to be disjointed and not at all smooth. But as a whole, I did enjoy J. Edgar.

What an incredibly driven man. As someone who studies people and their motives, it would be an interesting study into Hoover’s psyche.

At the age of 24, he became head of the new General Intelligence Division of the Bureau of Investigation within the Justice Department. At age 26, he rose in the Bureau of Investigation to deputy head, and in 1924, the Attorney General made him the acting director. At age 29, President Calvin Coolidge appointed Hoover as the sixth director of the Bureau of Investigation.

I've read three different biographies on him over the past twenty five years or so. The film appears to be accurate.

If this is true, I feel justified in my loathing of Hoover.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aliens

My opinion of Hoover doesn’t deter me from wanting to watch this movie, and I doubt it will sway my opinion on whether or not I like the movie. I let movies stand on their own merit. It’s an Eastwood movie, so that is a good indicator that I will like it.

I did manage to see this via NF BD, and for the most part I did like it. Di Caprio did a better then what I expected job, but he didn't quite looked like Hoover Anyway for a biopic this was much better the the Iron Lady was, while it did follow that jumping back and forward in time storytelling, it was at least not as confusing and made more sense. For someone like me who grew up under tyranny, was hard to see some of the familiar tones and actions taken by the Government in the name of the "common good". Well it turns out it was mostly for Hoover's good, although he did believe in what he's doing will benefit most, he sometimes lost all common sense, and his action were fueled by vengeance and vanity. The movie didn't spend too much time on his motives, and alleged sexuality , as it had to cover a long period of time of history in just over 2 hours.
However it did manage to portray this man fairly well IMO and so the times he lived in.

I did manage to see this via NF BD, and for the most part I did like it. Di Caprio did a better then what I expected job, but he didn't quite looked like Hoover Anyway for a biopic this was much better the the Iron Lady was, while it did follow that jumping back and forward in time storytelling, it was at least not as confusing and made more sense. For someone like me who grew up under tyranny, was hard to see some of the familiar tones and actions taken by the Government in the name of the "common good". Well it turns out it was mostly for Hoover's good, although he did believe in what he's doing will benefit most, he sometimes lost all common sense, and his action were fueled by vengeance and vanity. The movie didn't spend too much time on his motives, and alleged sexuality , as it had to cover a long period of time of history in just over 2 hours.
However it did manage to portray this man fairly well IMO and so the times he lived in.

I agree with your analysis. Although, at least by 21st Century standards, Hoover was often a monster, he seemed to believe that he was doing the right thing most of the time. I also agree that J. Edgar is a far better film than The Iron Lady, despite how impressed I was by Meryl Streep's luminous performance as Margaret Thatcher.

Although, I largely admired Thatcher's performance as Great Britain's Prime Minister, I was nevertheless deeply disappointed by the film. My disappointment sprang not from any particular problem I had with the films's political point of view but by the poor job it did of telling Thatcher's story. Like Hoover, Thatcher was a lightning rod and most people have strong feelings about her, either positive or negative. Consequently, it seems to me that a better film was there than the one that was ultimately delivered.

In stark contrast to The Iron Lady's director and screenwriter, Eastwood and his screenwriter, Dustin Lance Black, used the controversial aspects of Hoover's character very effectively. Somehow, they managed to depict the man as both reprehensible and sympathetic.

At the age of 24, he became head of the new General Intelligence Division of the Bureau of Investigation within the Justice Department. At age 26, he rose in the Bureau of Investigation to deputy head, and in 1924, the Attorney General made him the acting director. At age 29, President Calvin Coolidge appointed Hoover as the sixth director of the Bureau of Investigation.

I see my rant about Hoover was removed. I admit I probably pushed it too far, but the entire content didn't need to be removed. One key point I made; the human brain isn't fully developed until the age of 25, so I thought it was irresponsible to put a person so young in such a powerful position. I guess that is about as far as I can go.

At the age of 24, he became head of the new General Intelligence Division of the Bureau of Investigation within the Justice Department. At age 26, he rose in the Bureau of Investigation to deputy head, and in 1924, the Attorney General made him the acting director. At age 29, President Calvin Coolidge appointed Hoover as the sixth director of the Bureau of Investigation.

I see my rant about Hoover was removed. I admit I probably pushed it too far. One key point I made; the human brain isn't fully developed until the age of 25, so I thought it was irresponsible to put a person so young in such a powerful position. I guess that is about as far as I can go.

Well his ascend was just out of this world I agree [developed brain or not] but the movie failed to explain of why him. Yes we could brush it off with the rise of Communism in Europe and the growing paranoia of that here in the US and maybe the government needed someone who was young energetic and determined, and if things go wrong they could just discard him, but I wanted to see that to flashed out.

Yes there quiet a few irresponsible and questionable decisions were made at the time but it is useless to worry about
that now.

I agree with your analysis. Although, at least by 21st Century standards, Hoover was often a monster, he seemed to believe that he was doing the right thing most of the time. I also agree that J. Edgar is a far better film than The Iron Lady, despite how impressed I was by Meryl Streep's luminous performance as Margaret Thatcher.

Although, I largely admired Thatcher's performance as Great Britain's Prime Minister, I was nevertheless deeply disappointed by the film. My disappointment sprang not from any particular problem I had with the films's political point of view but by the poor job it did of telling Thatcher's story. Like Hoover, Thatcher was a lightning rod and most people have strong feelings about her, either positive or negative. Consequently, it seems to me that a better film was there than the one that was ultimately delivered.

In stark contrast to The Iron Lady's director and screenwriter, Eastwood and his screenwriter, Dustin Lance Black, used the controversial aspects of Hoover's character very effectively. Somehow, they managed to depict the man as both reprehensible and sympathetic.

Well maybe Eastwood can make a companion movie about the people Hoover affected in a negative way, see what you think of him then?

On the other hand Hoover did establish the modern forensic evidence gathering, and it's importance to fight crime, [The Lindbergh baby case was good example]and that is lasting and very positive achievement.

Some of you are overlooking the fact that until the Civil Rights era (late '50's/early '60's) the Jim Crow laws were the place, and the official US Government policy did not include equal rights for minorities. The first time I saw Washington, DC was during the late 1950's, and there were still seperate restrooms, water fountains, and bus seats for Blacks and Whites - in private and public buildings, both.

I mention this because most of you don't remember the USA before the Civil Rights era. It was a different place, and all law enforcement officers everywhere, not just J. Edgar, enforced racist laws, and Martin Luther King was an enemy of the country, investigated by the Feds at every turn.

J. Edgar was a product of his time. Once equal rights became law, he pursued the KKK. You can't understand the man absent his setting. Nor can you properly judge his actions by the standards of today.

Well his ascend was just out of this world I agree [developed brain or not] but the movie failed to explain of why him. Yes we could brush it off with the rise of Communism in Europe and the growing paranoia of that here in the US and maybe the government needed someone who was young energetic and determined, and if things go wrong they could just discard him, but I wanted to see that to flashed out.

I was hoping for the same. Maybe those that have read the many biographies about Hoover can explain. However, depending on the author, biographies aren’t always the best and fairest way to access ones place in history, so we may never get the full story. With the advent of the Internet it seems like history is changing on a daily basis to severe ones agenda.

Quote:

Originally Posted by thehun

On the other hand Hoover did establish the modern forensic evidence gathering, and it's importance to fight crime, [The Lindbergh baby case was good example]and that is lasting and very positive achievement.

More specifically, fingerprinting. Until DNA testing came along that was the top dog. However, as overwhelmingly positive as fingerprinting has been and will continue to be, it is an invalid science. Same with bite marks. There is a fallacy that no one has the same fingerprints, and while that is largely true, many people will have the same ‘points’ and that is where it has gotten into trouble. Because innocent people have been convicted based on fingerprints, the ‘point’ bar has now moved. What is the new ‘point’ bar? That is what the ‘experts’ are debating. Is it 16? 23? 30? One thing I can be sure about, if you are innocent and your ‘points’ indicate otherwise, you will be living a nightmare. People would also be surprised to learn that these so-called ‘experts’ called in to testify in court are any thing but expert. But that is another story.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gary McCoy

Some of you are overlooking the fact that until the Civil Rights era (late '50's/early '60's) the Jim Crow laws were the place, and the official US Government policy did not include equal rights for minorities. The first time I saw Washington, DC was during the late 1950's, and there were still seperate restrooms, water fountains, and bus seats for Blacks and Whites - in private and public buildings, both.

I mention this because most of you don't remember the USA before the Civil Rights era. It was a different place, and all law enforcement officers everywhere, not just J. Edgar, enforced racist laws, and Martin Luther King was an enemy of the country, investigated by the Feds at every turn.

J. Edgar was a product of his time. Once equal rights became law, he pursued the KKK. You can't understand the man absent his setting. Nor can you properly judge his actions by the standards of today.

I remember it very well. I see and hear it to this day. Lately, it seems like a revival is going on.

I think everyone here understands Hoover was a product of his time. But not everyone who lived in those times agreed with everything Hoover did, either. He ruled with an iron fist – my way or the highway. He made a lot of enemies along the way and they lived in those times as well.

Every President lived in fear of Hoover, including Nixon, and that was in the early ‘70’s, not the ‘30’s. Is that what we want/wanted? I hardly think so. Hoover has a history. It is what it is, both positive and negative. As the saying goes: There’s more than one-way to skin a cat. Just because Hoover did it his way doesn’t mean it couldn’t have been done differently and with just as much success.

I was hoping for the same. Maybe those that have read the many biographies about Hoover can explain. However, depending on the author, biographies aren't always the best and fairest way to access ones place in history, so we may never get the full story. With the advent of the Internet it seems like history is changing on a daily basis to severe ones agenda.

More specifically, fingerprinting. Until DNA testing came along that was the top dog. However, as overwhelmingly positive as fingerprinting has been and will continue to be, it is an invalid science. Same with bite marks. There is a fallacy that no one has the same fingerprints, and while that is largely true, many people will have the same points' and that is where it has gotten into trouble. Because innocent people have been convicted based on fingerprints, the point' bar has now moved. What is the new point' bar? That is what the experts' are debating. Is it 16? 23? 30? One thing I can be sure about, if you are innocent and your points' indicate otherwise, you will be living a nightmare. People would also be surprised to learn that these so-called experts' called in to testify in court are any thing but expert. But that is another story.

I remember it very well. I see and hear it to this day. Lately, it seems like a revival is going on.

I think everyone here understands Hoover was a product of his time. But not everyone who lived in those times agreed with everything Hoover did, either. He ruled with an iron fist - my way or the highway. He made a lot of enemies along the way and they lived in those times as well.

Every President lived in fear of Hoover, including Nixon, and that was in the early 70's, not the 30's. Is that what we want/wanted? I hardly think so. Hoover has a history. It is what it is, both positive and negative. As the saying goes: There's more than one-way to skin a cat. Just because Hoover did it his way doesn't mean it couldn't have been done differently and with just as much success.

I'd agree that Hoover was too powerfull and was in control way too long for the good of the country. But his legacy is the FBI, one of the best police forces in the world. The FBI was the original practitioner of modern forensic science, and the success of this caused a revolution in criminal law.

Hoover's tactics were definately too extreme for the second half of the 20th Century. But they were entirely appropriate for his pursuit of Prohibition-era gangsters and smugglers. He didn't have the good sense of when to back off.

Hoover's tactics were definately too extreme for the second half of the 20th Century. But they were entirely appropriate for his pursuit of Prohibition-era gangsters and smugglers. He didn't have the good sense of when to back off.

Quote:

Originally Posted by oink

Agreed, he was a very self-righteous guy.

I agree also. As I put it in an earlier post, Hoover's curse was that he lived too long. If Hoover's record were based only on what he did in the '30s and '40s I suspect his reputation would have been much better than it ended up being.

I agree regarding Hoover achieving great things including a federal law enforcement system that used educated members to elevate the entire profession. His crime lab and the systems he developed live on.

He had flaws and as others have said one needs to look at these in a temporal context.

I believe outside of context his greatest flaw was staying on too long and needing to use blackmail to hold onto his power.

I thought that J. Edgar did an excellent job of portraying Hoover warts and all. Dustin Lance Black's screenplay and Leonardo DiCaprio's performance were brilliant and those are just two indications of what a great director Eastwood is. Nothing about the film was sugarcoated. In fact, some of its scenes were hard to watch, at least for me. That said, I thought it could hardly have been fairer and still be faithful to what we know of the facts of Hoover's long and eventful life.

That said, I thought it could hardly have been fairer and still be faithful to what we know of the facts of Hoover's long and eventful life.

One aspect when you have someone this powerful that has been around for so long is that you get a interesting view of US History. The world changed alot between 30-70. And done right the story of one man can tell the story of many.